Examining The Spurs De-Evolution From A Team Game To A One Man Show

http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2009...-one-man-show/



This is graph heavy, so be advised. It’s important to remember I’m not actually doing predictive analysis or presenting hypothesis. I’m mostly taking a look at what comes up and seeing if there’s anything noticeable to explore further.

Additionally, we’re using points per game. I’d much rather do per 36, but with the minute distribution in this series and the small sample size, I don’t feel like it’s a good comparison.

Even Jordan didn't start winning championships until he got others seriously involved instead of an afterthought.


I've always felt that's was TP's Achille's heel, as a scoring PG, the balancing act.

Parker needs to score and get others involved during the flow of the game so he doesn't feel he needs to jack up a 3 pointer when we're down by 5 with a minute and a half to go, when he has nothing left and just missed 2 free throws due to fatigue.

If he just ran some offense there we might have pulled it out. I'm not harping on the man that scored 40, but it's not winning basketball to play like that.

We used to execute during those situations, not pray on luck for a shot to go in.

Even if people are missing shots, you have to keep going to them, as long as getting them into a groove doesn't jeopardize the game. You don't have to force feed, just keep making the extra pass and the right plays. Set your teammates up if you can.

Difficult to do though if they are staying home on shooters.

Pop and his coaching staff have to find a way.

THat's a great way to describe it - De-evolution.

Pop has turned Parker into the French version of A.I. How far did his teams get with him taking the majority of the shots and scoring most of the points. I know that, at this point in time, he's all they have - especially with Duncan hobbled. However, that doesn't change the fact that it just doesn't work.

It should surprise no one that the Spurs are backed against the wall like this.

So now my question is this:

Although the bench is struggling mightily in this series, would it be best if Parker simply orchestrate the offense in the first half, i.e. get others involved early to get them going, and then start looking for his shot moreso in the second half, similar to what Kobe has been doing a lot this season.

Granted, the Lakers supporting cast is significantly stronger than that of the Spurs, but instead of having Parker constantly being burned out in the fourth quarter, perhaps it'd be better if we can "force feed" the bench into generating some early offense?

lol Finley.

Our role players can't get themselves open, can't finish at the rim, and can't make shots. Don't blame this on TP. I agree he should do what he can to get everyone else involved, but he is no CP3, not to mention he doesn't really have anyone to throw an ally-oop too lol. He is a shoot first PG and thats what the team is built around. Always has been and always will be.

That is even the project with Hill. If he lives up to his potential he will be another version of TP but with a defensive presence. We have won 3 championships using this style of PGs. I don't see anything changing in our offensive make-up anytime soon.

In the game 4 :

Tony was +7 in 41'12.
The Spurs were -16 (Mason -13 PG :bang) during the 6'48 Tony spent on the bench.

The real problem is that Tony can't play 48 min.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amuseddaysleeper

... but instead of having Parker constantly being burned out in the fourth quarter, perhaps it'd be better if we can "force feed" the bench into generating some early offense?

---

Pop: No, our plan is fine and we're sticking with it.

:pctoss

And let me add... Tony is what he is. We have other players, namely Manu, that would normally help creating offense for others, and also adding points on the board. He's injured and thus unavailable. So that is that.

Tony has played with a lot of heart this series, and honestly, some of his teammates have not deserved to be out there with him and Timmy. You couldn't possibly ask more of Parker. His jumper was a liability, he went back to the drawing board, worked hard, and now he has a fairly solid jumper. He can finish a lot better around the rim than years past. He has increased his assists numbers as well.

Let's face it, the problem here is not Tony, but the role players around him. Somewhere, Pop thought Finley could still hit a mid range jumper. They knew they needed help in that department, and went for Magette, but couldn't sign him. Mason needs to learn how to dribble the ball without causing a turnover. Somebody needs to tell him it's OK to shot a two instead of taking treys from way, way downtown when we're struggling to score.
The infuriating part is that we have a relatively decent slasher warming up the bench.

This team is what it is. I think if we flame out in the first round, there's an inevitability to tear a substantial part of it down, and find pieces that make more sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

This team is what it is. I think if we flame out in the first round, there's an inevitability to tear a substantial part of it down, and find pieces that make more sense.

---

And, sad though it may be, maybe flaming out in the first round is what needs to happen in order to get the right moves done.

We'll see what happens. In any case, we need to win Tuesday, just to show that we have some pride left. Otherwise this year's Spurs are last year's Suns.

Pop - So in the final analysis, back to the drawing board.

Excellent post. But all this TP talk about becoming AI is funny stuff. If TP had some players who could play above the rim, his assists would be sky high. Since he doesnt and always has to pass into the lanes or onto the court its almost impossible. See Nash's players who play above the rim. See CP3's players who play above the rim. Tony is just like his house. Awesome from the inside out. Not his fault Pop brings him guys who cant move their feet. Guys who can only shoot the ball and nothing else.

i'll will make it more simple, without complex graphics:

- Tim dominating: NO
- Manu here: NO
- role players hitting their shots : NO
-Tony scoring at will: YES


========>>>>>>> Tony's one man show


Is this the way we wanted to be in these PO ? NO.
we wanted Manu playing, Tim dominating and role players stepping up.
Since any of these 3 things are happening, Tony has to score again and again.

Someone had really a lot of time to lose. A lengthy article with tons of graphs simply to state something damn obvious and simple.

^^ I was thinking along those same lines too at first, but if someone wants to take the time and puts effort at the least we don't have to be dismissive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timaios

The real problem is that Tony can't play 48 min.

---

pussy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yuixafun

Even if people are missing shots, you have to keep going to them, as long as getting them into a groove doesn't jeopardize the game.

---

That caveat has been the case each time Parker isn't attacking. In Game 4, look at the third quarter for an example of what happens when the Spurs try to lean on the role players. Or look at the entirety of Game 3.

It's like some Spurs fans think that the team can just wave a magic wand and the burden can be shared by all. Pop, Parker and Duncan would love for that to be the case ... however, it's simply not the case at this point. The role players are either missing or not shooting open shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SenorSpur

THat's a great way to describe it - De-evolution.

Pop has turned Parker into the French version of A.I. How far did his teams get with him taking the majority of the shots and scoring most of the points. I know that, at this point in time, he's all they have - especially with Duncan hobbled. However, that doesn't change the fact that it just doesn't work.

It should surprise no one that the Spurs are backed against the wall like this.

---

:rolleyes

Since when did AI ever shoot 55% in a series? And blaming this on Pop is an even weaker take. Right now the Spurs have two options: 1) Tell Parker to attack constantly and hope that enough players come along for the ride to hopefully win 2) Lose

There's no scenario where Parker can just sit back, feed the role players and the Spurs win a game in this series. If this series were a battle of the role players, the Spurs would have been swept by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amuseddaysleeper

So now my question is this:

Although the bench is struggling mightily in this series, would it be best if Parker simply orchestrate the offense in the first half, i.e. get others involved early to get them going, and then start looking for his shot moreso in the second half, similar to what Kobe has been doing a lot this season.

Granted, the Lakers supporting cast is significantly stronger than that of the Spurs, but instead of having Parker constantly being burned out in the fourth quarter, perhaps it'd be better if we can "force feed" the bench into generating some early offense?

---

Yes, in a perfect world, that's exactly what the Spurs would try to do. But, it's just not plausible. You could have Magic Johnson or John Stockton trying to orchestrate the offense but nobody would be able to get blood out of the stones the Spurs have currently for complementary players. It's just not happening.

And really, the biggest factor in the role players disappearing is that the Mavs aren't doubling Duncan. The Spurs have been an inside-out team for the last twenty years. Right now, they aren't an inside-out team because Duncan can't punish the Mavs enough to draw any extra attention.

I wish there was some critique of Parker that could potentially be pointed out and suddenly make the Spurs the favorites in this series but that's not the case. He's carrying the amount of the load he is because he has to. If he tried to be more patient, the results would be negative.

And as timaios pointed out, the strategy of Parker carrying the Spurs offense is working. It's not like the Spurs are getting blown out with Parker having to do most of the heavy lifting. It's been a successful strategy considering the Spurs outscored the Mavs last game with Parker on the court.

The weaknesses of the Spurs and the areas that need to change are numerous. Parker's play is one of the few positives the Spurs have going at this moment.

Role players, role players. It's really all about our role players. We have known that since Manu's injury. We just didn't expect them to be so unproductive. We can tell ourselves the Spurs are going to lose, stop worrying about it. But after all these years, it just breaks one's heart seeing Duncan and TP playing their guts out and no other Spur significantly helping out. What a hopeless feeling.

We can only hope this is the catalyst that will move the FO. Duncan's years are numbered and TP is peaking. Manu back healthy and some added talent, keep our new young guns (Bonner off the bench, please!). And, let's hope when Timmy goes out, he goes out like D. Rob, holding a trophy in his hand. Until then, get to work Front Office!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

lol Finley.

---

How are the Lakers the Jehovah's Witnesses of the League?

[QUOTE=timvp;3337827]

And really, the biggest factor in the role players disappearing is that the Mavs aren't doubling Duncan. The Spurs have been an inside-out team for the last twenty years. Right now, they aren't an inside-out team because Duncan can't punish the Mavs enough to draw any extra attention.

QUOTE]

Yes, the writing is on the wall, we're proably going to need a different type of role player moving forward. We can no longer rely on Duncan to make defense only, 3 pt shooting roll players into a solid supporting cast. He's going to need some slashers and creaters who can play off him but also help create offensive opportunities for him.

Hopefully, Duncan will come back strong next year, but as he gets older, the probabilities will inevitably shift so that leaving Duncan single covered even if he's scoring fairly efficienctly is the correct way to play the Spurs. Manu being out just exposes this growing problem...

uuummmmm pie!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

And blaming this on Pop is an even weaker take. Right now the Spurs have two options: 1) Tell Parker to attack constantly and hope that enough players come along for the ride to hopefully win 2) Lose

---

Not necessarily. Certainly Pop's roster/lineup mismanagement must have a bearing on the pressure put on Tony to produce.

Mason and Hill to a certain degree, have shown themselves to be productive players earlier in the season before Pop started his ham-fisted "adjustments."

Of course the old chesnut about "this is the playoffs" will be trotted out, but at some point you have to wonder why other teams can have rookies and new players make positive contributions in the playoffs and we can't. Again, Pop's coaching moves must have some bearing on this equation. I don't believe that it's simply a matter of our role players completely sucking.

Duncan not commanding double teams is infinitely more worrisome than a bunch of shitty bench players playing like shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amuseddaysleeper

So now my question is this:

Although the bench is struggling mightily in this series, would it be best if Parker simply orchestrate the offense in the first half, i.e. get others involved early to get them going, and then start looking for his shot moreso in the second half, similar to what Kobe has been doing a lot this season.

Granted, the Lakers supporting cast is significantly stronger than that of the Spurs, but instead of having Parker constantly being burned out in the fourth quarter, perhaps it'd be better if we can "force feed" the bench into generating some early offense?

---

It would help both Pop & Tony if the other guys could make a basket. Right now we'd be better off bringing in some High School basketball players. At the very least they'd make their Free Throws.

In Game 2 Tony got others involved but, they were hitting their shots. We picked the wrong time to go into a shooting funk. And can anyone ever remember when Finley has had a good game in Dallas since becoming a Spur. In Game 6 Pop might want to consider bringing Michael off the bench in Dallas and then make him a starter again in Game 7.

If we have another shooting slump tomorrow night then the NBA is either rigged or we have the worst shooters in the NBA other than NO after tonight's fiasco.

We Are Devo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capt Bringdown

Not necessarily. Certainly Pop's roster/lineup mismanagement must have a bearing on the pressure put on Tony to produce.

Mason and Hill to a certain degree, have shown themselves to be productive players earlier in the season before Pop started his ham-fisted "adjustments."

Of course the old chesnut about "this is the playoffs" will be trotted out, but at some point you have to wonder why other teams can have rookies and new players make positive contributions in the playoffs and we can't. Again, Pop's coaching moves must have some bearing on this equation. I don't believe that it's simply a matter of our role players completely sucking.

---

If you are waiting for George Hill and R. Mason Jr. to revive this team your going to be disappointed.

I hate to say it, but it's less of a matter of our role players completely sucking, and more of a problem with our team being completely old.

Spurs need to do some serious recruiting and restructuring.

I love Finley Gooden and Thomas but... well, this team already has enough veteran leadership. We need guys that can play with intensity while Tim and Tony get a rest.

Without a solid bench, Everything else suffers.

Might be a long next couple of years.

duncan is not demanding the double team
because tp has demanded more attention

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

duncan is not demanding the double team
because tp has demanded more attention

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by austinlakepirate

If you are waiting for George Hill and R. Mason Jr. to revive this team your going to be disappointed.

---

That's not my expectation, Mason and Hill aren't the saviors of this team, obviously.

However, we might just be a better team if they were utilized properly. Perhaps it wouldn't of mattered, but I believe players should be allowed to be fufill the role they are best suited for, and rookie development is preferable to what we've seen from Pop this year. I also believe these things have a bearing on how much pressure TP is under to deliver.

As it stands, I wonder where we can go for here if our coach has such rigid and inflexible notions about how to work new players into our scheme. Pop doesn't trust rookies and it's been said that it even takes vets a year to learn the system.

We ain't got a year, and we desperately need young energy. Therefore, it looks like Tony's going to have a great year scoring-wise next year. As for our title chances, well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capt Bringdown

Not necessarily. Certainly Pop's roster/lineup mismanagement must have a bearing on the pressure put on Tony to produce.

Mason and Hill to a certain degree, have shown themselves to be productive players earlier in the season before Pop started his ham-fisted "adjustments."

Of course the old chesnut about "this is the playoffs" will be trotted out, but at some point you have to wonder why other teams can have rookies and new players make positive contributions in the playoffs and we can't. Again, Pop's coaching moves must have some bearing on this equation. I don't believe that it's simply a matter of our role players completely sucking.

---

You misunderstood my point. I was meaning that Pop isn't to blame for having a gameplan that includes Parker creating constantly. Where we stand right now with injuries, ineffective play and poor coaching decisions, Pop giving Parker the reins to the team is the only way the Spurs have a prayer.

I'm not saying Pop is blameless. He'd probably even admit that he F'ed up. His gambles this year have not paid off at all. In past year he gambled on players like Stephen Jackson and an ineffective Robert Horry and there results were golden in the playoffs. This year almost all his gambles ended up being mistakes in hindsight.

Pop coaches outside the box and sometimes that ends up biting him and sometimes it helps the team win championships. This year it all signs point to the former being true.

The way I see it, "poor coaching decisions" must play a role in "a gameplan that includes Parker creating constantly."
I don't see why you're separating those two factors in order to exonerate Pop. He's not entirely to blame for the Parker having to do an A.I. impression, but he must share some of the blame IMO.

It's Pop's strange decisions to effectively neutralize Mason by playing him a a role he's not suited for and give up on Hill that in part dictates the need for Parker to bear most of the burden right now.

The Blame goes to both. Parker more than Pop however seems to be the problem. AI can create his own shot and create for others to. Thats what parker is doing. Thats not running an offense though. And thats not helping your teammates who are down in the dumps confidence. I can sit here and blame parker for all of our loses except game 3 without even flinching. WHY? Parker is slashing , shooting and passing the ball well for 2 1/2 - 3 quarters. Then in the 4th he is exhausted. How is that his fault? because of depending to much on his skills an not developing more Basketball / point guard IQ. His teammates are screwed. Mason jr. / Bonner / Finley haven't done anything. In the 4th quarter the mavs lock down on parker and duncan. The other 3 guys haven't made the mavs react defensively in any way. Parker sees that the team needs points to win. He is going to score all of them. instead of slicing down the lane and kicking out to guys all the time, why not call plays for them which would force them to be more active and take more responsibility and have a part in there own resurrection as POP says. And the main things is that it allows parker to have just enough energy for the 4th qt.